Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TdIcI-0003wG-A9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:42:14 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from 2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk ([90.184.5.129] helo=mail.ceptacle.com) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1TdIcC-0001jW-WE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:42:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BA926C50BE for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:42:03 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceptacle.com Received: from mail.ceptacle.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server.ceptacle.private [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K-6rudI9aWKh for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:42:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from [109.105.106.200] (unknown [109.105.106.200]) by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3F5C26C50B1 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:42:02 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Michael Gronager In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:42:01 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <626D0E73-1111-4380-AABE-6C8C65F2FFCC@ceptacle.com> References: <895A1D97-68B4-4A2F-B4A1-34814B9BA8AC@ceptacle.com> To: Bitcoin Dev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1TdIcC-0001jW-WE Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:42:14 -0000 >=20 > The SignedReceipt message is useful in the sense that it shows > confirmation by the merchant, but if you don't get one, you can still > prove you paid the invoice. So from this perspective perhaps > SignedReceipt should be renamed to Acceptance or something like that, > and then the spec should call out that a signed invoice plus accepted > Bitcoin transactions is mathematically a proof of purchase. Which is why I find the "SignedReceipt" somewhat superfluous. If you = implement a payment system, like bit-pay/wallet you are likely to double = that through some sort of e-mail receipt anyway. Further, the inclusion of x509 is not really needed in the spec - you = don't need to sign the invoice with an x509, you can use the payment = key. The proof would still be equally binding, and valid also for non = holders of x509 (server) certificates (like normal people). Finally, host certificates does not normally keep in their "purpose" = S/MIME Signing. So you are bending the intended use of the x509 = certificate anyway. /M >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single > web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, = vmware, > SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. > Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development